Posted by Joshua on Friday, June 19th, 2009

(Naharnet) ….Regarding elections, Nasrallah said the opposition’s goal was to obtain a parliamentary majority “in order to carry out reform plans.”

“This, however, has not been achieved,” he acknowledged.

“I will not conceal that we were looking forward to winning the elections because winning meant confronting major challenges,” he added.

“However, we dealt realistically with election results. We were not shaken because we are still where we were, and nothing has changed as far as we are concerned.

He said he will continue to maintain the atmosphere of calm.

Nasrallah said elections took place under U.S., Western and Arab “intimidation in an effort to impose their options that may not coincide with the will of the Lebanese.”

“The opposition did not lose its status, but has stood fast in the face of a true global war: lies, money and America.

Nasrallah stressed that the opposition enjoys a “popular majority,” while the parliamentary majority is a “reality under the electoral system.”

He interrupted himself to tell the pro-government parliamentary majority jokingly: “I advise March 14 (forces) not to interfere in the Iranian elections because this is an issue that they don’t understand.”

Turning to the issue of vote-buying, Nasrallah said: “There is no equality of opportunity between the loyalists and the opposition regarding the issue of brining in expatriates, particularly with regards to money.”

“We will follow up on election violations through the law and will not resort to street” protests,” he said……

“…. The March 14 victory is a setback for Hizbullah which had hoped that an opposition win would provide a protective seal around its military wing. Contrary to scare-mongering rhetoric from some Israeli and Western officials, Hizbullah had no desire or interest in assuming control of the state if the opposition had triumphed.

Hizbullah’s history of participation in Lebanese constitutional politics has always been one of necessity rather than ambition. …..Protecting its weapons, not running the Lebanese state, remains Hizbullah’s principal motivation for political participation. If the opposition had won, Hizbullah probably would have preferred to fade into the background, leaving its allies to helm the government on a daily basis.

The party has invested enormous effort and expense in rebuilding and honing its military capabilities since the 2006 war with Israel. The level of recruitment, training and rearming is unprecedented in its 27-year history….

The dilemma facing Hizbullah is that without the one-third blocking share, it is vulnerable to fresh attempts to disarm its military wing. …. what action is Hizbullah – the most powerful political and military entity in the country – prepared to take to persuade March 14 to back down and re-offer the blocking share?

Much depends on the wisdom of March 14. If its leaders feel emboldened by its electoral mandate and continued US and Saudi support to begin maneuvering to weaken Hizbullah’s hold over its weapons, it surely will provoke a fresh crisis.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, facing a mounting political crisis in Iran, is increasingly relying on the counsel of a career diplomat who has been a staunch supporter of tough measures to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program.

The emergence of Middle East specialist Dennis Ross as a presidential confidant is being scrutinized in Washington for its potential impact on Mr. Obama’s approach to Tehran, as the nuclear issue and electoral crisis play out.

Mr. Obama has committed himself to direct talks with Tehran, but has said the U.S. should keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. He also has said the Iranian regime can be expected to be hostile to the U.S., regardless of who is declared president.

Mr. Ross is about to move to the White House from the State Department, where he served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s point man on Iran. In his writings and speeches, he has argued for a direct U.S. outreach to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, something White House officials say they have considered.

Mr. Ross has also argued for crippling sanctions, and potentially military action, if Tehran doesn’t come to the negotiating table over the nuclear program, which the U.S. says is intended to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Mr. Ross didn’t respond to requests to comment for this article.

The White House says his move there will strengthen the National Security Council and is an indication of the pre-eminence Mr. Obama is placing on the Iran issue. Two administration officials said Mr. Ross would maintain his role overseeing Iran policy while also providing Mr. Obama with advice on broader Mideast issues…..

Former U.S. officials who have worked with Mr. Ross said he could prove to be an effective ally of Mr. Obama’s in managing Washington’s prickly relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Ross developed close ties to Israel’s leadership during more than a decade of work aimed at forging an Arab-Israeli peace agreement.

An Obama administration official said the president developed a personal relationship with Mr. Ross during last year’s presidential campaign, and wanted him at the White House. The official said Mr. Ross’s move is the latest in a series of hires that have brought key officials into the executive office, from health policy to energy.

Mr. Ross was a latecomer to Mr. Obama’s campaign, but helped write a number of Mr. Obama’s key foreign policy speeches, said Obama campaign staff, and worked to galvanize a Jewish-American community that was skeptical of the candidate’s pro-Israel credentials.

“…Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday reiterated the Jewish state’s refusal to freeze settlements. The Israelis say they received commitments from the Bush administration permitting some growth in existing settlements. …………..”In looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements,” she (Clinton) said ..”

When an Israeli journalist asked how the Obama administration could envision a peace deal with the Netanyahu government placing so many conditions, Clinton suggested the government could change its stance.

She said previous prime ministers “have staked out positions that have changed over time.”

Mitchell, the special envoy for Middle East peace, is to travel on June 25 to Paris for talks with Netanyahu in the wake of the Israeli premier’s speech, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip Crowley said.

…On May 7 the Arab League published the 254-page report of an Independent Fact Finding Committee (IFFC) it had established to examine the legal implications of Israel’s Gaza offensive. This committee, comprising six experts in international law, criminal law and forensic medicine from non-Arab countries, visited Gaza in February. We concluded that the IDF had committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As the committee’s chairman, I spent five days in Gaza along with the other experts. Our views were deeply influenced by interviews we conducted with victims and by the evidence of destruction of property. We were particularly disturbed by the accounts of cold-blooded killings of civilians committed by some members of the IDF and the Israeli military’s use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas. The devastation was appalling and raised profound doubts in my mind as to the veracity of Israeli officials who claimed this was not a war against the Palestinian people.

The IFFC found that the IDF, in killing some 1,400 Palestinians (at least 850 of whom were civilians), wounding over 5,000 and destroying over 3,000 homes and other buildings, had failed to discriminate between civilian and military targets, terrorized civilians, destroyed property in a wanton manner not justified by military necessity and attacked hospitals and ambulances. It also found that the systematic and widespread killing, injuring and terrorizing of the civilian population of Gaza constituted a crime against humanity. ….

* John Dugard is a professor of law, a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the chairman of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza

The IAEA chief was angered by Michaeli’s remarks, according to the diplomat and said Israel’s position was “totally distorted.” “We’re not behaving selectively but across the board. We’re implementing the
international law. When Israel bombed what was claimed to be a nuclear facility, it was not only hampering our work, but it was a clear violation of international law,” ElBaradei said.

“You, sir, your action is deplored [sic] by not allowing us to do what we’re supposed to do under international law,” the IAEA chief said.

“You’re not even a member of the regime to tell us what to do,” ElBaradei said, referring to Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “We would appreciate it if you stopped preaching to us.” Syria was the main focus of debate on the fourth day of the IAEA meeting. The U.S. accused Syria of obstructing the IAEA’s probe.

“… Dr. ElBaradei, whose term of office is to expire in November, said in the interview that countries in possession of nuclear weapons were treated differently from others, citing the example of North Korea, which was invited to negotiations while Iraq under Saddam Hussein — which did not have a nuclear capacity — was “pulverized.”

“It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons …. They want to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world, ‘Don’t mess with us,’ …..“ultimate aim to be “recognized as a major power in the Middle East.”

Nuclear weapons technology, he said, was “the road to get that recognition, to get that power and prestige. “It is also an insurance policy against what they have heard in the past about regime change.”…. administration officials in Washington have said it is not clear that Mr. Moussavi would be any more flexible about Iran’s nuclear ambitions than Mr. Ahmadinejad has been.”

T Desco one of my favorite film directors is Akira Kurosawa.(and also Abbas Kiarostami of Iran)
I’m not completely ignorant of the persian culture nor the cultures of the more eastern cultures.
And btw ,this is not a culture ,c’est de la comédie cher ami.
You will find a lot of criticism here against this wrong culture from a man who was part of the system .http://www.drsoroush.com/

Syrian regime is still silent about what is going on in Iran. His media did not mention anything so far and they seem waiting on the sideline. While in Tehran and other big cities, the drama is still unfolding and authorities are cracking down on opposition.
Best picture:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6498787.ece
It shows that the change will come on the hands of women who only them can beat the secret service.

As expected, Mussawi submits. And foreign governments may eat their hearts out!!! What were they thinking? A banana republic? Ask G. Britain what happened to it when it challenged the mullahs over tobacco (Iranian tanbac) some 70 years ago. These guys never learn from history.

Majid but the demonstrators are not followers of Musawi ,he was in the begining a pretext in order to make known their opposition to the faqih dictature ,anyway if he doesnt betray this movement ,he would gain more credibility as defector.

I think you would appear more genuine if you didn’t feign concern for the Iranian people. I don’t recall you showing so much concern when “Israel” was butchering Palestinians in Gaza. I also don’t see you expressing support for the Peruvian people who were killed by the government for protesting the destruction of their natural habitats. You should just come out and admmit that you merely want to satisfy your deep-seeded hatred for anything “Shia”. Otherwise, you would show similar attentiveness to the oppressed people in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Nour,palestinian is not business for me as it’s for your masters that use it as tool to delude the people from their illegitimate rule,be sure that i’m closer to the palestinian people than you are,the palestinian cause is for me an existensial,religious,cultural cause.
And btw i attack both ,but without doubt ,the arab dictators are more dangerous than the zionist occupation ,for the simple reason is that our struggle against Israel untide us ,the arab regimes exhaust us ,and the worse exhausters are Asad and Gadhafi .
They have killed more palestinians than Israel did and btw there are hundreds of palestinians in syrian regime jails who are suffering worse torture than those committed in Israel(it’s from a former palestinian prisoner who had known both prisons).The idea is simple we would not gain respect by the world as long as we remain under the shoes of the worse kind of people.
In order to put an effective pressure on Israel ,there is one necessity: being free masters of our own destiny because Israel doesnt fear an humiliated people by hateful dictators.
BTW,History has proven that those who destroyed our capacities are the people who share the same kind of idealogies than yours.For this reason ,former leftist arab thinkers regret the kings and lords that they fought in their youth.

John Dugard’s article is very sobering. And while the killing had temporarily stopped in Gaza, the people who lost their homes are still living in tents, and the deep Arab pockets that had thumped its chest and pledged Billions hasn’t delivered a thing yet, because Hamas and Fatah can’t get their acts together to reconcile or find a mechanism of helping these people without politicizing the matter. How awful.

First, I do not have any masters, nor am I a slave to a sectarian, tribal mentality. I am clearly aware of my national identity based on a solid understanding of our socio-economic reality. Further, I believe that partial political events and developments cannot be a basis for achieving national unity and bringing about a true change in our current situation.

The issue of Palestine is not a “religious, cultural” cause, but rather a national cause whereby a nation has the right to determine its own destiny and is the sole decider in how its land and natural resources are used. To gain a full understanding in this matter we would have to go back to the basic idea of how nations are formed and the role the natural environment plays in their development. The natural environment thus becomes a main factor in determining national character and becomes part of the nation itself. As such, it is not a property that can be bought and sold, but rather a NATURAL ENVIRONMENT that is intimitely linked to national life in all its generations. Based on this basic understanding, no individual, group, or even single generation has the right to give up or surrender a single inch of the this natural environment, namely the homeland.

From this we see that the occupation of any part of the homeland constitutes the single largest threat to national life, while the existence of corrupt regimes and systems is a reflection of the lack of national consciousness which leads to confusion, division, and the dissipation of the energy of the nation. Of course this lack of national consciousness also helps the enemy in occupying our land and exercising control over our people. However, the corrupt regimes are not the cause of our woes but merely a symptom of the main problem, which is our loss of national identity.

I completely agree with you that the enemy does not fear a humiliated people, but you should keep in mind that this is why the enemy loves nothing more than to exploit our divisions and keep us in a permanent state of confusion, where our energies are spent in internal bickering and fighting rather than pouring our efforts in fundamental national matters, based on our clear awareness of our national unity.

Therefore, all internal problems you are listing cannot be solved merely with political formulations, such as overthrowing regimes, winning elections, etc., so long as the people continue to lack national consciousness and insist on holding on to divisive, fragmentary mentalities. And unfortunately, you suffer from such a mentality, whereby you view our society as one made up of different groups, rather than one where all members are parts of a single nation, equal in rights and duties. And I do not say this in defense of other corrupt groups or bankrupt ideologies, such as the Baath, that have done nothing but sustain our national woes, as they do not possess the requisite awareness to bring real change to society. I say this to make clear that all ideas, movements, groups, and ideologies in our nation that continued to reflect our social ailments and diseases cannot consitute a basis for real change. And I do not belong to any of these ideologies.

((( Be realistic Nour,what is the common denominator between all these people? )))

What is the common denominator for the people of the United state of America , i see the similarity there (( The Land )) the American land for the US and the Arab land for the people in our part of the world ))

If the Kurd believes in a greater Kurdistan, it is a country for Kurds only. If the Jew believes in a greater Israel, it is a country for Jews only. That’s a wholly different thought than that espoused by the Social Nationalist ideology, which views all people inhabiting the Syrian homeland and taking part in its national life as equal members of a single nation. We do not differentiate or discriminate between any members of this nation because we take society, with all its elements, as the basis of the nation, as opposed to those who view the sect, ethnicity, or tribe as the main factor determining national identity.

Those so-called “secular” ideologies within our nation (none of which were truly secular) no doubt contributed to the continued division of the nation because they believed in “nationalist” ideologies rooted in divisive, fragmentary thinking, as they had no scientific basis for their positions. However, the religious and sectarian ideologies and groups also contribute to the division of the single society because their view of society is one broken up into various sectarian or religious groupings.

Only the Social Nationalist ideology has a single, unifying view of society where all elements within it are viewed as members of a single nation equal in rights and duties, and therefore no discrimination between any one member and another is made.

Majid why don’t you just let go of all of your hate !!what a peaceful man you are and how nice you write about the “zionists” which are called that way like that it is easier to shoot them right!And all the zionist occupiers but i think i get it first you kill us in the arab countries (60 percent of israel is from arab countries) before israel was created then we jews flee to israel and now you want to liquidate israel that is all very nice but remeber einstein was very nice to us and loved us and left us lots of knowledge!you rasist liar!

And shami as an israeli i agree israel does play a role in trying to benefit from all arab divisions but at the same time these divisions do not serve israel cause they day that people might want to negociate; for example if the palestinians stay divided fatah/hamas then to make an accord alone with them is very complicated no actually it is impossible because of the division and shami i really hope you will drop the enemy thing cause we too see our own cause in a nationalistic cultural dimesion so it would just complicate things further more and would not serve the interest of elevating the arab society to continue war on your jewish brothers!